Ј5,000,000 to keep
down the perpetually upspringing rights of new-born infants, without
throwing land out of cultivation to any sensible extent. The whole
question will lie thus between a total rate of Ј25,000,000 and
Ј30,000,000. I am about, however, as a corollary to this subject, to
suggest a way of forming a National Rate Book which probably would
not materially alter the present rating, but which would alter
entirely the taking of land for public purposes, and would effectuate
all that is good in the phrase the Nationalisation of Land.

This phrase is liberally used but rarely defined. Different orators
appear to have quite different ideas as to what it means; and when
they explain what they suppose it to mean, they generally prove that,
in the way they understand it, it would be serious national damage.

It is unnecessary to observe that landlords now (omitting individual
exceptions and idiosyncrasies) expend their best endeavours in
getting the best rent they can for their land. They have no
prejudices in favour of farms of a particular size; a landlord of a
farm of 1000 acres would let it directly in five-acre plots if he
could get a better (and equally certain) gross rent by so doing.
"Nationalisation" is often taken to mean that Government is to buy
land and let it out in small plots. But apart from expense of
Government management and objections to Government interference, we
may safely assume that there would be a national loss by this
procedure: the private owner would discover very quickly if he could
make a profit by letting his farms piecemeal.

All Government interference can do to improve the produce of the land
is to abolish all restrictive laws, and to make the general tenure of
land such that every piece of land shall fall into the hands of that
man who is able to make the most of it. The National Rate Book now
suggested is designed to accomplish this end. We will subsequently
consider how it might assist public companies. As the suggested way
of getting a National Rate Book is at first sight rather startling, I
would premise that it is no rash invention of mine; it worked
admirably in Attica--as see Demosthenes or Boeckh.

To make the National Rate Book, each landowner values (with the
magistrate) his land at what price he pleases; the State has the
right to buy the land at any time at that price, plus 33-1/3 per cent
for compulsory purchase. The magistrate sees that each separate
house, farm, and plot is valued separately. No person need prove his
title; any man can value any piece of land, and need not prove
himself to be owner, tenant, or agent; but any piece of land valued
by no one would be claimed as public property.

A man who valued himself unfairly low would not be bought out at once
and dispossessed by Government, unless it happened that during that
year his land was taken up by Government or by a railway company for
some public purpose. The regular course of business would be as
follows:--An owner A would put his house and curtilage in the Rate
Book at Ј1200. The sycophant B would come to the magistrate, offer
Ј1600 for the property, and lodge the Ј1600 with the magistrate. The
magistrate then, without divulging the name of the sycophant, would
write to A either to rate his house at Ј1600 (paying a fine for so
doing), or to take Ј1600 for it. If he took the Ј1600, B would get
the property, and Government the increased rate. If A preferred
raising his rateable value to Ј1600, B would get the fine, Government
would get the increased rate.

_The utmost pressure put upon any owner under this system would be
that, if he would not pay rates on x pounds for his property, he
would lie obliged to take x pounds for the property._

The 33-1/3 per cent for compulsory purchase is illusory, and I have
only put it in the statement of the scheme to meet an objection which
I know to be common (and equally illusory). It is clear that if I know
I